1992
DOI: 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90007-c
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparability of standard and computerized administration of two personality questionnaires

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Test-retest reliability in a study of computerized and pen and paper administration was comparable to the reliability values given in the EPI manual (Sanitioso & Reynolds, 1992).…”
Section: Strengthsmentioning
confidence: 58%
“…Test-retest reliability in a study of computerized and pen and paper administration was comparable to the reliability values given in the EPI manual (Sanitioso & Reynolds, 1992).…”
Section: Strengthsmentioning
confidence: 58%
“…However, it is not always clear what effects different testing modes have on properties of test results. Some studies have shown that individuals are likely to respond more candidly to sensitive questions when asked by computer rather than when personally interviewed or when responding to a paper-and-pencil questionnaire (Evan & Miller, 1969; Marshall, Hays, & Nicholas, 1994; O'Brien & Dugdale, 1978; Sanitioso & Reynolds, 1992). Other studies have shown that computerized testing decreases the amount of candor (Angle, Johnson, Grebeenkemper, & Ellinwood, 1979; Lankford, Bell, & Elias, 1994; Schuldberg, 1988).…”
Section: Present Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%